For those of you following our social media, you know we recently attended the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA) Spring 2026 Conference in Baltimore. As in years past, one of the most valuable parts of the conference was the chance to sit in on panel discussions with enrollment and admission leaders from a wide range of colleges and universities across the country. These candid conversations are a reminder of just how much our profession depends on the kind of trust and openness that makes gatherings like this possible.

As I did after the 2023 IECA Conference, I want to share the most meaningful takeaways from these sessions with the students, families, and fellow professionals who follow our work. In the spirit of maintaining the kind of open dialogue that makes these conversations possible, I’ll be striking the same balance as before: I’ll reference institution names when the context is already publicly known (these were panel presentations at a professional conference), but I’ll avoid attributing specific quotes to individuals and focus instead on identifying the major themes that surfaced across multiple sessions.

Before I dive in, here’s a general overview of who we heard from during these sessions:

• In total, we heard from professionals representing over fifteen institutions, including large public flagships, highly selective private research universities, small liberal arts colleges, and regional public universities.

• Institutions represented included: University of Rochester, Fordham University, Elon University, Carnegie Mellon University, Swarthmore College, Lafayette College, MIT, George Washington University, Ohio State University, University of Maryland, William & Mary, Amherst College, University of Pennsylvania, Gettysburg College, Towson University, and the University of Vermont.

• Student populations across these institutions ranged from approximately 2,700 to over 67,000.

• Acceptance rates spanned from the single digits to over 80%.

• Among the professionals we heard from, titles included: Vice Provost for Enrollment, Dean of Admissions, Senior Associate Vice President and Dean of Admission, Director of Undergraduate Admissions, Assistant Vice Provost, and Vice President and Dean of Administrative Financial Aid.

• I’ve divided the most notable trends into the following topics:

  • Testing Policies: A Landscape Without Consensus

  • AI in Admissions: A Moving Target

  • Authenticity Over Strategy

  • The Activities Section: Inside the Reader’s Mind

  • Liberal Arts Is Having an Identity Crisis

  • Enrollment Management: Yield, Demographics, and the Cliff

  • Legacy Admissions Are Fading

  • Workforce Readiness and the Skills Gap

  • Post-Pandemic Ripple Effects Continue

  • Financial Aid & Affordability

  • General Advice for Students, Families, and Counselors

Testing Policies: A Landscape Without Consensus

If you’ve been following higher education news over the past few years, you’ve probably heard some version of the following narrative: “Everyone is going test-optional.” I’m here to tell you that the reality heading into 2026 is considerably more complicated, and arguably more interesting, than that tidy summary suggests.

• Ohio State University returned to a test-required policy in 2025, ending a four-year test-optional period (2021–2025). With over 88,000 applications for approximately 8,300 spots, one factor in the decision was reducing the uncertainty-driven over-application that test-optional policies can generate. OSU’s representative was candid that they will continue to monitor the effects of this policy shift.

• MIT has never gone test-optional and continues to require the SAT or ACT for all applicants (with case-by-case exceptions for documented testing difficulties). Their position is that standardized testing remains the most equitable evaluation method available at their scale, a point their representative made with conviction.

• University of Maryland is test-optional through 2027, with a policy decision expected in winter. Their data suggests comparable outcomes between submitting and non-submitting students across four-year graduation rates, though they did note small differences in first-year GPA.

• William & Mary is indefinitely test-optional. Their institutional research shows retention rates within tenths of a percentage point between test-submitting and non-submitting students. They also noted that first-generation and low-income students are significantly more likely to apply without test scores.

• Carnegie Mellon has taken perhaps the most differentiated approach: test-optional for fine arts, test-required for computer science, and test-flexible for other majors (with SAT, ACT, AP, or IB scores all acceptable depending on the program).

• Swarthmore and Lafayette have leaned into interviews as their primary differentiator, rather than relying heavily on testing, with Lafayette conducting hundreds of interviews annually.

• All institutions agreed that, regardless of testing policy, the transcript remains the most important factor in the review process. Curriculum within a high school’s context, followed by supplemental coursework, came before any discussion of test scores.

• One consistent note across multiple sessions: Students and families took two or more years to genuinely trust that test-optional policies were sincere and not a “catch.” This trust gap continues to shape how families approach the application process.

What this means for students and families: The days of a single, universally applicable testing strategy are behind us. A student’s testing decisions need to be made school by school, program by program, and with a clear understanding of each institution’s current and potentially evolving policy. This is yet another reason why working with a knowledgeable college counselor matters more, not less, as the landscape fragments.

AI in Admissions: A Moving Target

At the 2023 IECA Conference, AI in college admissions was a topic that felt somewhat hypothetical for many institutions. In 2026, that is no longer the case. AI came up in virtually every session I attended, though the conversations looked quite different depending on which side of the desk was being discussed.

AI in Student Applications:

• Several panelists acknowledged that their staff cannot reliably identify AI-written essays. The honest admission from multiple institutions was that while experienced readers can often spot AI-generated prose, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so consistently.

• At the same time, institutions using supplemental essays noted that the contrast between a personal statement and supplemental writing often reveals AI use. A highly polished personal statement followed by significantly weaker supplemental essays raises flags.

• Panelists were largely united in one observation: AI hasn’t created fundamentally new problems; it has just shifted proportions. A poorly written essay, AI-assisted or not, still doesn’t help a student. At the same time, a well-written essay that doesn’t reflect a student’s authentic voice can fall apart under the scrutiny of an interview or supplemental responses.

• Institutions are developing clearer AI use policies, and students should be aware that policies vary significantly. One panelist specifically recommended that students ask about each institution’s AI policy during the college search process.

• The risk of AI in activity descriptions was flagged specifically in the activities section panel (more on that below). Panelists described AI-generated activity descriptions as unhelpfully generic and a missed opportunity for students to actually show who they are.

AI in the Admissions Office:

• On the institutional side, AI is being piloted for tasks like GPA recalculation and transcript synthesis, reducing reliance on student workers and increasing efficiency.

• One institution is exploring AI for preliminary transcript review, while emphasizing that holistic assessment and committee decisions will remain human-driven.

• Panelists from public institutions noted that they can identify AI-assisted recommendation letters and, in some cases, call schools directly when suspicious content is detected. The emergence of AI-generated recommendations is a concerning trend worth watching.

• The consensus was that while AI can be a useful tool for specific administrative tasks, it cannot and should not replace the human elements of holistic review. Authenticity, judgment, and institutional fit are not things an algorithm can assess.

What this means for students and families: Use AI as a tool for proofreading, brainstorming, and research, not as a ghostwriter. The goal of the application is to help an admissions officer understand who you are. An AI-generated application may slip through the process undetected, but it ultimately does the student a disservice by obscuring the authentic voice that should be the star of the show.

Authenticity Over Strategy

If I had to identify a single theme that threaded through every session at this conference, it would be this: authenticity is no longer just preferred, it is the differentiating factor that institutions are actively trying to identify and protect.

• Multiple panelists emphasized “why” over “what.” Admissions officers across the board were less interested in what activities a student participated in and far more interested in why they made those choices. What does a student’s application tell us about their values, motivations, and genuine interests?

• Swarthmore shared one of the more compelling frameworks I heard: they have defined eight specific community qualities on their website and train readers to look for concrete evidence of those characteristics across the application. This approach is deliberately designed to avoid the kind of vague “fit” language that can introduce bias while also making the evaluation more systematic and transparent. This is a concept I think warrants more exploration and widespread adoption (hopefully to be tackled in another blog post in the near future).

• One panelist described taking an HR-like approach to admissions: rather than relying on intuition about fit, their office explicitly articulates why a student is a good match for their community, with documented reasoning.

• A case study session featuring Amherst College and the University of Pennsylvania highlighted one of the more cautionary tales of the conference. Panelists walked through an application where a student had listed significant involvement in founding and overseeing a nonprofit, only for inconsistencies to emerge during the review process that raised serious questions about misrepresentation. The lesson was clear: a student doing authentic, meaningful work, even if modest in scope, is always a safer and more compelling story than an elaborated or embellished one.

• Panelists across multiple sessions were explicit: creating nonprofits and pursuing paid research opportunities specifically for college applications carries significant risk with limited reward. One panelist said they viewed these activities similarly to other “pay-to-play” extracurriculars, not penalized, but also not particularly compelling when the motivation is transparent. Local engagement and self-initiated projects were consistently described as more compelling.

• “Don’t try to get admitted,” was the paraphrase I heard from multiple enrollment leaders. “Do meaningful things because they’re meaningful.” This sentiment was not a platitude; it came with the acknowledgment that admission officers, many of them seasoned professionals, can generally feel the difference between a genuine application and a strategically engineered one.

What this means for students and families: The application strategies that prioritize visibility over substance are increasingly being recognized for what they are. Students who invest their time in things they genuinely care about, and who take the time to reflect on why those things matter to them, are better positioned than those who construct a college application from the outside in.

The Activities Section: Inside the Reader’s Mind

One of the sessions I found most practically valuable was a panel featuring admission officers from Gettysburg College, Towson University, and the University of Vermont, who spoke candidly about how they actually read the activities section of a college application. Here’s what they shared:

How Much Time Are You Getting?

• Towson University: approximately 5–7 minutes per full application. Gettysburg College: approximately 8–10 minutes per application. These are not large windows, and the activities section competes with the transcript, essay, recommendations, and supplemental materials for that time.

• Acronyms are a genuine problem. Multiple panelists mentioned the frustration of encountering activity names or organization abbreviations that mean nothing to a reader unfamiliar with a student’s school or region. If there’s any doubt about whether a reader will understand a term, spell it out.

What Are They Looking For?

• All three panelists agreed that they are looking for students who will be engaged, successful, and contribute to campus life. The activities section is where they start to build a picture of who a student is beyond the transcript.

• Progressive involvement over time matters. Readers notice when a student has deepened their commitment to an activity rather than simply collecting titles.

• Readers cross-reference. They actively compare the activities section with the essay, the additional information section, and the recommendations. Inconsistencies between these pieces, especially around significant claims, raise flags.

• Context and explanations for gaps in participation are important. If an activity stopped before senior year, a brief explanation (in the activity description or additional information section) is appreciated.

On the Question of AI:

• Panelists were aligned on this: AI-generated activity descriptions are unhelpful. The 150-character limit on the Common App activities section is already tight, and using AI to fill that space with generic language wastes a valuable opportunity. One panelist described AI descriptions as “efficient but hollow.” Use those characters to say something real about what you did, how you did it, and why it mattered.

The Additional Information Section:

• This section exists to expand meaningfully on significant activities or to provide context for circumstances, not to repeat information already in the activity list. Used well, it is a genuine asset. Used poorly, it creates clutter.

A Few Specific Notes:

• Honor societies: List them, but don’t over-explain or over-emphasize. Readers know what NHS is.

• Hours: Be realistic and representative. No one is fact-checking, but inflated hours look suspicious when the rest of the application doesn’t support them.

• Clustering related activities can be helpful for readability, but authenticity and specificity matter more than organizational elegance.

What this means for students and families: Think of the activities section as a conversation, not a form. The goal is to give a reader a genuine understanding of what you’ve done with your time and why. If you’ve been thoughtful about the three questions, What did you do? How did you do it? Why did it matter? The section writes itself. You can find more information about this framework in one of our previous blog posts.

Liberal Arts Is Having an Identity Crisis

I don’t mean to be alarmist with that heading, but the conversation around liberal arts education at this conference was candid in a way that I found both refreshing and sobering. Multiple sessions touched on this topic, and the picture that emerged was one of institutions that deeply believe in what they’re offering, but are working harder than ever to communicate that value in a world that is increasingly skeptical. This one hits close to home for me personally, as both an alumnus of a liberal arts college and a previous employee of another liberal arts college’s admission office.

• Computer science enrollment is dropping dramatically nationwide. This came up in multiple sessions, from highly selective research universities to smaller liberal arts colleges. Students who were flooding into CS programs a few years ago are now shifting toward business, economics, and finance, partly due to a perceived cooling of the tech job market.

• One panelist summarized the shift memorably: students are now asking how to “major in wealth.” As humorous as that quote might be, it’s also the reality for many students (especially young men) that I work with. Economics programs are seeing growth. Several institutions mentioned adding new finance minors with ethics components in response to student demand.

• The case for liberal arts was made consistently and passionately, but with an acknowledgment that the institutions making it have more work to do. The key arguments:

  • Liberal arts prepares students for the job after their first job. The skills of synthesis, critical thinking, written communication, and adaptability compound over time in ways that narrowly technical credentials do not.

  • The United States’ strength in higher education globally is tied to the breadth and flexibility of its undergraduate model, something that institutions in other countries are beginning to emulate.

  • Experiential learning is the bridge. Multiple institutions mentioned significant investments in internship funding, co-op programs, and industry partnerships as the way to make the liberal arts case tangible to families focused on return on investment.

• Several institutions highlighted accelerated degree programs (3+1 and 3+2.5 models combining a bachelor’s and master’s degree) as both a practical response to cost concerns and a way to differentiate their value proposition. These programs also carry implications for scholarship eligibility and total cost that counselors and families should understand.

• One panelist made the point that liberal arts programs are preparing students for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in ways that more narrowly technical programs may not, noting that skills like communication, collaboration, and ethical reasoning are exactly what employers say they cannot find.

What this means for students and families: The ROI conversation around a college degree is legitimate and worth having. But I’d encourage families to resist the impulse to evaluate a major solely by its proximity to a current high-demand job title. The workforce is changing faster than academic programs can track. A student who can think clearly, write well, work across disciplines, and adapt is an asset in any market, and that’s precisely what a well-executed liberal arts education produces.

Enrollment Management: Yield, Demographics, and the Cliff

If you’ve been working in or paying attention to admissions and enrollment management, you’ve likely heard the phrase “demographic cliff.” Looming on the bookshelves of many a higher education professional, like a financially fueled boogeyman, is Demographic and the Demand for Higher Education by Grawe, Nathan D. The book touches on “Decades-long patterns in fertility, migration, and immigration persistently nudge the country toward the Hispanic Southwest. As a result, the Northeast and Midwest―traditional higher education strongholds―expect to lose 5 percent of their college-aged populations between now and the mid-2020s.” Several sessions touched on the business side of enrollment, and the picture is genuinely complex heading into the second half of this decade.

The Demographic Cliff:

• Institutions across size, type, and selectivity mentioned expanding recruitment into new geographic markets, with Texas and Florida cited most frequently as growth targets. One institution is adding regional recruitment staff specifically for those states.

• The declining high school population in traditional recruitment markets, primarily the Northeast and Midwest, is creating real pressure. Institutions that have historically filled classes from a narrow geographic base are being forced to broaden their strategies.

Yield Unpredictability:

• Student behavior is becoming increasingly unpredictable, and this came up repeatedly. More students are double-depositing. More students are waiting until April 30th to make decisions. More schools are using deferrals and waitlists as enrollment management tools because late-cycle behavior has become so difficult to forecast.

• International enrollment adds another layer of volatility. Multiple institutions acknowledged that factors entirely outside their control, visa policies, geopolitical dynamics, and currency fluctuations, are making international yield harder to predict than ever.

• Demonstrated interest policies vary significantly:

  • William & Mary tracks demonstrated interest and considers it meaningfully, especially for out-of-state students.

  • University of Maryland does not track demonstrated interest.

  • Multiple selective private institutions acknowledged that students who demonstrate significant interest are often already strong applicants, making it difficult to attribute yield to interest tracking specifically.

• Scholarships remain a powerful yield tool. Multiple panelists noted that sometimes the recognition of a merit scholarship matters as much to families as the dollar amount and that merit aid is increasingly being used strategically to attract high-performing students.

Class Building:

• A theme worth elevating: students don’t control who else is in the applicant pool, or what a university needs in a given cycle. Class goals can shift mid-cycle based on residential capacity, major-specific needs, revenue targets, and state residency requirements. A student who was an excellent admit in one year might be a different outcome in another, and this is not a reflection of the student’s worth.

What this means for students and families: Build a balanced college list with a genuine range. A list built on prestige alone, without accounting for the institutional enrollment goals that shape any given admissions cycle, is not a sound strategy. Work with a counselor who understands these dynamics and helps families approach the process with realistic expectations.

Legacy Admissions Are Fading

This one is worth noting explicitly, because the shift is real and accelerating.

• Amherst College has eliminated legacy preferences in admissions. Their representative shared that this resulted in a decrease from 11% to 9% of legacy students in their incoming class, a meaningful but not dramatic change, which may help address fears that eliminating legacy preferences causes immediate and catastrophic disruption to enrollment.

• Panelists from other institutions were candid that legacy status is increasingly more contextual than determinative. At some schools, legacy information is noted and used to understand a student’s educational background and family context, not as a thumb on the scale.

• Penn’s representative noted that their process is moving toward a community-based evaluation where legacy status is not formally weighted as a positive or negative factor.

• The increase in application volumes was cited as one reason that institutions have been revisiting legacy policies. When you’re reading 60,000–80,000 applications for a few thousand spots, legacy status simply cannot carry the weight it might have carried decades ago.

What this means for students and families: If a family legacy at a particular institution has been part of your mental calculus as you build a college list, it is worth revisiting that assumption. Attending alumni events and building a genuine relationship with a school still matters, but legacy as an automatic advantage is a strategy that is quietly but meaningfully eroding.

Workforce Readiness and the Skills Gap

One of the more thought-provoking sessions at the conference wasn’t directly about admissions at all; it was about what comes after college. A panel focused on the Fourth Industrial Revolution and workforce readiness offered a sobering and energizing picture of the world students are entering.

• 72% of employers report difficulty finding workers with the skills they need, up from 38% just ten years ago. That gap is being driven by rapid technological change: AI, big data, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, and emerging fields in aerospace and healthcare.

• The conversation about “technical vs. soft skills” has evolved. The panelists’ consensus was that the framing is outdated. The question isn’t whether students need technical or soft skills; they need both, and the ability to communicate across disciplines may be the most valuable skill of all. One panelist described this as a “get-ready mindset” that includes global thinking, entrepreneurial orientation, and technological fluency.

• Experiential learning is the bridge between education and employment. Multiple institutions highlighted significant investments in internship funding, research opportunities, and industry partnerships. One institution spent over $600,000 last year to support student internships. Students seeking interdisciplinary work experience are becoming increasingly common, partly out of concern about job market volatility.

• AI as a career tool was discussed thoughtfully. The recommendation was not to avoid AI, but to use it intentionally for research and exploration while preserving and developing the critical thinking skills that AI cannot replicate. Students who become proficient in AI tools while maintaining genuine expertise in their field will be well-positioned. Students who rely on AI to substitute for expertise will not.

• Students should start building professional networks earlier than they think they need to. LinkedIn, professional associations, and genuine relationship-building with mentors were all mentioned as underutilized resources for college students. One panelist recommended that students connect with at least 20 professionals in fields of interest before graduating.

• Experiential learning doesn’t have to be glamorous. Any experience involving real work with real people, including service jobs and research in non-STEM fields, builds the human skills that employers consistently say they cannot find.

What this means for students and families: The college you attend is important. The major you choose matters. But how you spend your time outside the classroom, the internships, research, service, and professional relationships you build may matter just as much for long-term outcomes. Choose a college that actively supports these opportunities, not one that merely describes them in a brochure.

Post-Pandemic Ripple Effects Continue

More than six years after the onset of COVID-19, the ripple effects on higher education are not fully resolved. Several of the sessions I attended touched on challenges that institutions are still actively navigating.

• Writing skills have declined, particularly in long-form writing. This was mentioned by multiple institutions and echoed by panelists across session types. Students arriving on campus are less practiced at sustained analytical writing than their predecessors, and institutions are investing in support programs to address this gap.

• Mental health remains a significant thread in the application pool. At some institutions, mentions of mental health appear in approximately 75% of applications. This is not inherently a problem; students have been through a great deal, and many are being appropriately transparent about it, but it does underscore the importance of how students frame these discussions and the emphasis on growth and resolution rather than difficulty alone.

• Study abroad participation has not fully recovered, and at some institutions, the decline is still trending downward despite the pandemic receding. Students and families who are interested in international academic experiences should plan for this proactively and seek out institutions that are actively reinvesting in these programs.

• College readiness gaps are real, and institutions are responding. Some colleges have implemented alternative start programs, summer bridge programs focused on executive functioning, and expanded early advising support specifically for first-generation and international students. Panelists described these investments not as remediation, but as appropriate support for students navigating a genuinely complex transition.

• Applications to become Resident Assistants are still below pre-pandemic levels at some institutions, suggesting that students’ relationships to campus leadership and community roles are still recalibrating.

What this means for students and families: The college experience is different from what it was in 2019, and the support structures students will find on campus are actively evolving. Families should ask specific questions during campus visits about what support systems exist for students navigating the academic and social transition to college, not as a sign of weakness, but as a sign of savvy planning.

Financial Aid & Affordability

Financial conversations surfaced across multiple sessions, and a few themes were consistent enough to be worth highlighting here.

• Middle-income families qualify for more aid than they think. Multiple panelists made a point of noting that families earning up to $250,000 may qualify for meaningful financial aid at private institutions and that the gap between sticker price and actual cost of attendance is often significant. Dismissing a private institution based on sticker price without completing a net price calculation is a common and costly mistake.

• A high-need family is not always a low-income family. Multiple institutions made this distinction explicitly. The cost of living, family size, and assets all factor into need calculations in ways that families don’t always anticipate.

• Need-aware vs. need-blind policies create genuinely difficult trade-offs, and institutions are navigating these pressures in real time. Transfer admissions, in particular, is an area where several schools are actively working to balance growth goals with demonstrated financial need commitments.

• Merit aid is increasingly being used as an enrollment management tool, particularly to attract high-performing students in income brackets that don’t qualify for need-based aid. For the right student, a well-positioned merit aid offer from a school that might have a higher sticker price can result in a better financial outcome than a need-based offer from a less expensive school.

• For institutions relying solely on the FAFSA (rather than also using the CSS Profile), the evolving FAFSA landscape is creating genuine uncertainty in financial aid timelines. Families applying to these institutions should be prepared for potential delays and should not interpret a delayed aid offer as a sign of limited institutional resources.

General Advice for Students, Families, and Counselors

Some of the most direct and memorable moments at the conference came from the advice panelists offered to counselors for working with students and families. I’ve gathered the most resonant themes here:

For Families:

• Never ask a student’s peers where they are applying or what their test scores are. This piece of advice came up more than once, and it’s worth taking seriously. Comparison is the enemy of clarity during the college search process.

• Help your student own their process. Parents, counselors, and admission officers don’t attend college; students do. The more families can step back and support rather than manage, the better the outcome tends to be. If you haven’t read Jess’ blog post Why We Aren’t Applying to College or my blog post College Search Advice to Parents From Students, I strongly recommend them for navigating this process as a family in a healthy and supportive fashion.

• Set a dedicated time for college-related conversations and stick to it. One panelist described this as one of the most practical pieces of advice they give families: don’t let the college process consume every family interaction for two years.

• Understand affordability before you dismiss a school. The sticker price of private education is often a significant overestimate of actual cost. A free consultation with a financial aid office can be transformative.

For Students:

• Limit information overload from social media. The Reddit threads, TikTok admissions advice, and Discord servers are not your friends during this process. They raise the temperature without improving the outcome. Get your information from people who actually know your situation.

• Visit classes, not just campuses. Multiple panelists specifically emphasized that sitting in on an actual class during a campus visit gives students far more information about academic culture and fit than any campus tour. This is especially valuable when comparing a large research university to a small liberal arts college.

• Learn to process disappointment. This one landed with me. Panelists mentioned it unprompted and in different sessions: the college admissions process is going to involve some disappointment, and students who are helped to process that constructively rather than treated as if rejection is a catastrophe will be better for it. As one panelist put it, handling disappointment is a life skill, and this is a good moment to develop it.

• Do meaningful things because they’re meaningful. This was said in various forms across multiple sessions, and I think it is the most important piece of advice on this entire list. Authenticity isn’t just a feel-good concept; it is the thing that admissions officers say, consistently and repeatedly, they are looking for and struggling to find.

For Independent Educational Consultants:

• Work with the whole family, not just the student. Multiple panelists flagged family dynamics as a significant factor in how students experience the admissions process. Counselors who can navigate those dynamics and help parents understand affordability, appropriate involvement, and realistic expectations are providing a genuinely distinct service.

• Stay informed about evolving policies. Testing requirements, AI policies, financial aid practices, and legacy preferences are all in flux. The 2026 landscape is meaningfully different from 2023 in several key areas, and our credibility as professionals depends on giving accurate, current guidance.

• Focus on authentic fit, not prestige optimization. This came from the admission side, but it applies equally to our work as counselors. Students who attend schools that are a genuine fit for who they are academically, socially, and financially tend to succeed. Students who attend schools because of name recognition alone do not always have the same outcome.

Whether you’re a student deep in the application process, a parent trying to support your family through it, or a fellow independent educational consultant looking to stay current, I hope this summary provides some useful context and perspective. I want to extend a sincere thank you to all of the enrollment and admission professionals who took the time to be part of these conversations. Their openness and candor are what make these exchanges valuable and what make events like the IECA Conference worth attending year after year.

If you have questions about any of these trends or want to talk through what they might mean for your specific situation, feel free to reach out or schedule a free consultation through the link below. As always, I wish you the best of luck wherever your journey takes you.